Bombing each other into the stone age
Columnist MALIK AYAZ HUSSEIN TIWANA writes about the consequences of strategic and tectical bombing
It has been a year since Mount Chaghai rumbled, trembled and went white with pain. With that awesome sight, were unleashed events, the seriousness of which very few have realized and even fewer have understood. No doubt, after the Indian tests at Pokhran, Pakistan's choices were forced by strategic necessity. They also shut the rhetoric coming from people like Advani, Fernandes and Vajpayee. However, the nuclear genie shattered the innocence and romanticism of South Asia forever.
In Pakistan we have witnessed great jubilation over a great scientific achievement. Since then there has been euphoria all around and the nation has been given to understand that all our security problems have been solved and India dare not attack us, as we would retaliate with nuclear weapons - as simple as that. But what is likely to follow? The usual tit for tat. The two belligerents are sure to cause mutually assured destruction (MAD) because what else can one expect out of mad people.
The majority of people on both sides of the border think that a nuclear war is no different from a conventional war and like the previous three Indo-Pak wars, it too would be over in a few weeks. Yes, any such war would be over very soon because nothing much would be left to fight over and to fight with, anyway.
Both India and Pakistan have achieved nuclear status after much effort and investment and are not likely to stop at the present level of nuclear development. Their efforts have not been in jest. Inspite of international opposition and sanctions, further development and weaponization would take place. Deployment of strategic nuclear weapons would be a logical final.
We in Pakistan have been given more to celebrating our scientific achievement, which no doubt it is, than to ensuring how to manage the risks and responsibilities arising from the possession of nuclear weapons. This requires hard thinking and serious reflection on our part. Do we have a viable command and control system in place. Who would control the strategic nuclear weapons? who would control the tactical nuclear weapons with the three services? Do we have a nuclear doctrine? When, where and how, are we going to use the nuclear weapons, if we are forced into that option? Is our civil defence organization capable of coping with a nuclear attack, especially its aftermath? Are our people (with their low literacy levels) aware of the after-effects of a nuclear attack? the questions can be endless.
Till now most of our people think that a nuclear war would straight away mean attacking big cities with the big city buster nuclear bombs. Actually it is the use of small sub-kiloton nuclear weapons we have to be more concerned about.
Both India and Pakistan are endeavouring to perfect miniaturization of nuclear weapons. This will enable both the contestants to use tactical nuclear weapons even from artillery guns, tactical missiles on board ships and from tactical fighter aircraft. Even torpedoes and anti-ship missiles could be nuclear tipped. These are the weapons which can easily trigger a nuclear exchange leading to 'City Busting'.
A conventional war could easily escalate/degenerate into nuclear. A skirmish on the cease-fire line in Kashmir could easily get out of control if one of the sides makes a deep dent into the territory held by the other side. The hard pressed side ultimately takes recourse to the use of tactical nuclear weapons to clear the enemy out. Elsewhere as well, there would be a desire to correct the imbalance in conventional armaments/forces, by the introduction of tactical nuclear weapons. All hell would break loose because the other side would retaliate in kind tactically. Uninhabited or thinly populated areas like Siachin or the deserts of Rajashtan (a tactician's paradise) are the most likely places where tactical nuclear weapons could be used with impunity, without bothering about collateral civilian casualties. Value for human life in the Indo-Pak subcontinent is such that even if civilian populated areas become major battlefields, no mercy would be shown by either side. From the cockpit of my fighter bomber aircraft, I have witnessed the horrors of a conventional battlefield in the Akhnur-Chamb sector. I shudder to think what it would be in a nuclear battlefield. The carnage could overshadow the casualties of the battles of Somme, Flanders and Gallipoli (WWI) put together.
Sub-kiloton nuclear weapons, mounted on anti-ship missiles and torpedoes, could be effectively used against aircraft carriers and warships of higher tonnage. In the absence of sufficient numbers of precision guided munitions (PGMs) - 'Smart weapons', the temptation would be to use tactical nuclear weapons in order to destroy important tactical and strategic - high risk targets, which would otherwise require high intensity bombardment by conventional weapons. Bridges, powerhouses, gridstations, water pumping stations, TV radio transmitting stations, airfields, oil refineries, ammunition/POL dumps, high value industries and many other important, economic and military targets, could be easily destroyed. The temptation to use sub-kiloton weapons would be irresistible.
In a nuclear battlefield scenario the protection of combat troops would be a nightmare. Infantry units, artillery and tank formations would have very different requirements. Logistic support would become very difficult. The troops would have to be trained to fight and survive in a nuclear battlefield. The operational effectiveness of troops, in a post-nuclear attack battlefield scenario, would be extremely degraded. Similar problems would be faced for the protection and damage control at airfields, harbours and even surface warships at sea. We must remember that soldiers (even of the enemy) are human beings and children of the same God. The radioactive fall out from the use of numerous small tactical nuclear weapons would be sufficient to effect the ecological balance over a large area.
In a free for all scenario, just talking about the big cities, the scene would be horrendous. The protection of citizens would present an impossible task, especially in a creaking civilian administrative set-up such as ours. How efficient would be our fire fighting services, if any are left at all. What about casualty evacuation? Are our hospitals, if left standing, equipped and doctors trained, to treat victims of nuclear attack. In any future conflict, when and where a nuclear attack comes, is quite unpredictable. The speed with which devastation takes place, would not let a person run for an underground nuclear shelter. However, if we went about building these shelters (supposing there was sufficient warning), for how many people would we have these shelters and what would be the cost? Do we have any nuclear command posts, even for the leadership, which is going to conduct and direct the war? (There used to be building bye-laws requiring the construction of underground cellars below houses, are they still being implemented?) Do we have any underground hospitals?
The aftermath of a nuclear clash between the two neighbours, would be even more painful. I for one would like to be either at ground 'zero', so that I am vapourized in a second, or be thousands of miles away so that I can continue living a normal life. Any thing in between, would be affected to varying degrees, with multiple diseases, sickness and human misery. Imagine a society without electricity, gas and water, without any telecommunications, without any modes of transportation, with various diseases but without any hospitals, without any law and order and with radioactive contaminated food and water. All in all, by the end of the day, the two great civilizations of the Indus and the Ganges, would have destroyed themselves into the stone-age.
Although the acquisition of nuclear muscle by Pakistan and India has ensured that they do not become another Iraq or Yugoslavia, it has added a heavy responsibility on both. These are not ordinary weapons and both countries would have to face a host of new problems. Both would be fooling themselves if they believed that their nuclear capability has made their defence impregnable. However, both must remain conscious of the risks and responsibilities, and make the people aware of the seriousness of nuclear weapons, while preparing them to face the consequences in totality. The vernacular press in both countries has a great responsibility in this regard and it is hoped that it would come upto expectations. Both countries must continue to exercise restraint and endeavour to find peaceful solutions to problems like Kashmir. There is still time to pull back from the brink.
About the Author
Malik Ayaz Hussein Tiwana joined the Pakistan Airforce in 1964 and was commissioned as a fighter pilot. He took part in combat fighter bomber operations in Kashmir, Chamb and Shakargarh sectors. Later he quarters. He is a qualified flying instructor and a graduate of the P.A.F Staff College and the Joint Services Staff College. He has commanded a fighter squadron, a fighter wing and has held various other staff and command appointments.He also served a tenure as the Officer Commanding cadets at the Airforce Academy at Risalpur, before being posted as the Air and Naval Attache to Saudi Arabia. He was commended by the Government of Pakistan for his excellent reporting during the 1990-1991 Gulf War. Only his return he was seconded to Pakistan Naval Fleet Headquarters from where he retired after 32 years of service in uniform.
